What others say: Let shooting victims sue gun makers

Comments

So what is next? Suing bars for drunk drivers? Suing fast food for heart
attacks? Let's go after children's programming and video game
manufacturers for that one as well. We can also get them for ADHD. Oh, no ...
I am sorry, we need to sue the electronics manufacturers ....

Come
on people ... PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY has to play into it somewhere.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

June 25, 2013 5:21 p.m.

Re: ". . . it's the same thing that gets gun makers off the hook. Huge
"donations" to lawmakers who will pass any law if the price is
right."

So, in other words -- unenlightened liberal
self-interest.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

June 25, 2013 4:08 p.m.

Faced with the public nuisance suits, Smith & Wesson agreed to limit retail
customers to no more than one gun within a two-week period and threatened
dealers with cancellation of their contracts if "a disproportionate
number" of crimes were committed with guns they sold. S&W also began
installing safely locks on its weapons. That last bit is particularly important
because the Consumer Product Safety Commission is forbidden from regulating
firearms.

The report, released by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, pulled data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF) and found that 16,485 guns left the inventories of nearly 4,500
licensed gun manufacturers throughout the country without a record of them ever
being sold.

In 2004 Congress passed the Tiahrt amendment –
named for its sponsor then-Rep. Todd Tiaht which prohibits the ATF from
requiring gun manufacturers to track their inventory.

Automakers
might be forced to pay millions of dollars to crash victims even when the driver
engaged in stupid or reckless behavior, under the theory that manufacturers are
in the best position to possess information about such risks and redesign their
products to reduce t

RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT

June 25, 2013 2:22 p.m.

To "Truthseeker" you should be honest as to why the tobacco companies
were sued. They were sued because of negligence on their part. They claimed
that smoking wasn't as hazardous as it really is. Gun manufacturers are
completely honest that misuse of their product can kill people. The gun
manufacturers would only be liable if their guns were exploding, or if they did
not provide adequate warnings with their product. Last time I checked, when you
buy a gun part of the little booklet that comes with it tells you to be aware of
your target so that you don't kill anybody.

Can you give us an
example of how gun manufacturers are negligent, are a nuisance, or have unfair
trade practices?

But you still have not addressed the core issue.
Why sue the manufacturer when their product worked perfectly and the only laws
broken were by people using the gun in a way that the manufacturer said not to?

one old manOgden, UT

June 25, 2013 12:32 p.m.

"So, why not brewers, distillers, and distributors of alcohol? What lets
them off the liberal hook?"

Procura, it's the same thing
that gets gun makers off the hook. Huge "donations" to lawmakers who
will pass any law if the price is right.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

June 25, 2013 11:25 a.m.

In November 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states entered into a settlement
with five tobacco companies promising up to $206 billion over the next 26 years
in compensation for costs associated with smoking-related diseases. The tobacco
cases were unusual, if not unique, because they involved liability for products
that did function as intended, but with damaging outcomes.On a similar
notion, some cities and counties filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers to
recover public costs associated with gun violence. In addition to product
liability, these suits are based on theories of negligence, nuisance, and unfair
and deceptive trade practices.

Gun manufacturers have consistently
opposed laws that would provide oversight on the sale of guns.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

June 25, 2013 11:02 a.m.

Re: "Gunmakers have the responsibility to see that vendors/gun dealers who
sell their weapons do so in a lawful manner."

So, why not
brewers, distillers, and distributors of alcohol? What lets them off the liberal
hook?

Unenlightened liberal self-interest, maybe?

jsfCenterville, UT

June 25, 2013 9:37 a.m.

Just this past week, in a sad situation a person was killed with a golf club.
Many murders are committed with items other than guns. There is a great
difference between being allowed to bring suit than having the courts allow
rewards for nonsense suits. The reference to the 2.5 million dollars in suing
the gun manufacturer does not tell us if it was a judicial reward or a
settlement for ending a frivolous law suit. Such is the nature of consumer
injury law suits. More money is garnered from settlements out of court than
actual liability being settled in court.

By the logic of suing gun
manufactures, we can see the next law suits against the manufactures of the golf
industry, the makers of baseball bats, and then again the knife manufactures.
They should be held responsible for the safe and legal handling of their
products and the prevention of them getting into the hands of criminals. You do
realize the purpose of a knife is made for is to cut, penetrate or kill. Yes
kill, that is why they are stuck on the end of military rifles.

RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT

June 25, 2013 9:14 a.m.

To "Truthseeker" you want the gun manufacturers to enforce the law??!
What sense does that make? Do the makers of cold medicines make sure that the
grocery store sells them in accordance with the law?

What about car
dealers, do the manufacturers make sure that everything the car dealers do is
legal?

You seem to have an agenda against gun manufacturers, and want
to make it so difficult on them that it would drive them out of business.

one old manOgden, UT

June 25, 2013 9:06 a.m.

Mike Richards, "swallowness?????"

Have gun makers and dealers
been bribing Swallow too? I thought it was only the electronic guys and
multi-level marketers. That guy must have been busier than we originally
thought he was.

the old switcharoomesa, AZ

June 25, 2013 9:02 a.m.

I'm a liberal and I think that's a terrible idea.

Sue them
if it malfunctions but not for being shot. Extreme nonsense positions do nobody
any good.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

June 25, 2013 8:28 a.m.

Gunmakers have the responsibility to see that vendors/gun dealers who sell their
weapons do so in a lawful manner.

If gunmakers are selling their
weapons to dealers whose business practices result in a large percentage of guns
being used in crimes, then gunmakers should stop supplying that particular
dealer.

Guns are designed specifically to kill and maim. Any
analogy to cars or anything else is nonsense.

RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT

June 25, 2013 8:05 a.m.

To "LDS Liberal" you are not quite looking at it right. Lets look at it
in terms of a chain saw. Lets say that somebody loses it, pulls out a chain saw
and starts hacking on people. Should those that were injured be able to sue the
chain saw manufacturer?

I liked cjb's example of fat people. If
I eat too may "Grandma's Cookies" get fat or get lots of cavities,
can I sue the maker of "Grandma's Cookies" for producing an item
that has caused me harm?

To "one old man" you are wrong, you
can sue the gun dealer if they illegally sold a gun to a person. See
"Mississippi pawnshop sued in Chicago cop's death" in the Chicago
Tribune. What logical sense does it make to sue a gun manufacturer because
their product worked correctly?

Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah

June 25, 2013 7:38 a.m.

Can you imagine the swallowness of the argument to sue gun manufacturers? Can a
criminal sue the manufacturer of firearms when a policeman uses that firearm to
protect himself or the public?

We have the right to keep and bear
arms to protect ourselves from lawlessness whether that lawlessness is from the
criminal element or whether it is from an out of control government. The people
set the rules in America, not the government.

Gun manufacturers can
be sued if their firearms do not perform as expected. If a "gun"
explodes, the user or his family can sue the manufacturer.

Some
ill-informed and misguided people would turn that around. They would sue car
manufacturers if a car was used in the commission of a crime. They would sue
drug companies if someone misused medication. They would sue the agency whose
responsibility it is to provide water from the resevoirs if someone drowned in
their swimming pool.

It's time to grow up. It's time to
stop looking for ways to overturn the Constitution.

Mainly MeWerribee, 00

June 24, 2013 9:42 p.m.

This is stupid! If this happens, then anyone who makes alcoholic beverages,
cars, power tools, or anything will be open to a law suit.

Why
don't we hold the criminal accountable, not the inanimate object that was
used as a weapon?

one old manOgden, UT

June 24, 2013 9:25 p.m.

Procura is only partially correct. Let's edit his post to make it true.

Under Utah's (and our nation's) current lax gun laws, people
are not allowed to sue the gun dealers, gun makers, and gun show organizers,
whose untold billions in blood money finances the propaganda campaigns that
encourage the plague of guns and ammunition that is responsible for
firearms' death and misery tolls.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

June 24, 2013 5:18 p.m.

1conservative

WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

What a goofy idea.

So, if, while using my circular saw I "misuse" my saw and take
off a slice of my finger; I should get to sue the manufacturer?

A gun
is a tool, nothing more.

Lets face it, some people hate and/or have a
fear of guns. They probably need professional help to address those fears.1:58 p.m. June 24, 2013

===========

The makers of
"tools" are sued all the time.Why do you think there are now blade
guards and brakes on skill saws?[because people like to pay more money for
their "tools?]

And as for a gun being nothing more than a
"tool", The day I believe that will be the day a madman attacks
and kills 26 school children with a circular saw.

Let's face it,
you are wrong.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

June 24, 2013 4:57 p.m.

Re: "They can sue a bar who serves to much Alcohol."

Yeah --
but the gist of this article is that people should be able to sue gun
manufacturers.

Under Utah's current lax dram-shop laws, people
are not allowed to sue the brewers, distillers, and distributors, whose untold
billions in blood money finances the propaganda campaigns that encourage the
consumption that is responsible for alcohol's death and misery tolls.

C'mon liberals -- are you concerned about our lives and health, or
not?

Happy Valley HereticOrem, UT

June 24, 2013 4:20 p.m.

They can sue a bar who serves to much Alcohol.They've sued bands for
kids committing suicide after a listen.

mcdugallMurray, UT

June 24, 2013 3:17 p.m.

@1conservative Take a moment and think about your statement a bit more. "A
gun is a tool, nothing more." A tool who's intention is to fire
projectiles at high velocities to create a destructive effect, to either destroy
an object, or kill a living being. When used properly a fire arm is intended to
kill. The gun companies should not deserve any special laws protecting them
liability. The same logic can be used to protect the Tabacco industry, their
product is designed to kill, we don't provide liability protection to the
Tobacco industry do we?

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

June 24, 2013 2:59 p.m.

Re: "I believe that with rights come responsibilities."

So,
you must also believe we should tighten Utah's lax dram-shop laws and
permit lawsuits against those responsible for the carnage on Utah's
highways -- the "hospitality" industry, including brewers, distillers,
and distributors of alcoholic beverages, huh?

Alcohol-related crimes,
accidents, and disease cause WAY more death, destruction, and misery in Utah --
and every other state, for that matter -- than do guns.

As a test of
liberals' real level of commitment to our safety, let's see whether
they demand similar accountability of the more cynical and dangerous
"hospitality" industry.

Liberals?

cjbBountiful, UT

June 24, 2013 2:39 p.m.

Yes why not, but only if people who get in a car accident can sue automakers,
and fat people can sue grocery stores. gun makers shouldn't be any
different. If anything they should be more protected because the right to keep
guns is a constitutional right.

RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT

June 24, 2013 2:36 p.m.

What a moron.

Do we sue the car companies when somebody is killed
because of driver negligence? Do we sue lawn mower companies every time a
finger tip is clipped off? What about drunk drivers that kill somebody, do we
sue the alchohol manufacturers, or do we sue the bar that sold alchohol
irresponsibly and the driver?

Suing the gun manufacturers makes no
sense. Their product worked perfectly. The problem is that the owner was not
using their gun in a responsible way.

It is this mentality that has
given us parents suing schools because their kids failed too many classes to
graduate.

To "FreedomFighter41" many of the gun companies are
actually quite small, and are not "billion dollar" companies.

1conservativeWEST VALLEY CITY, UT

June 24, 2013 1:58 p.m.

What a goofy idea.

So, if, while using my circular saw I
"misuse" my saw and take off a slice of my finger; I should get to sue
the manufacturer?

A gun is a tool, nothing more.

Lets face
it, some people hate and/or have a fear of guns. They probably need
professional help to address those fears.

FreedomFighter41Orem, UT

June 24, 2013 1:44 p.m.

Brilliant idea!

Let the poor and middle-class, who are already
struggling to pay the bills, waste their money suing gigantic billion dollar
companies and their armies of lawyers!

sigh

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

June 24, 2013 1:41 p.m.

That's right - sue them into submission!Like any other consumer
product.